logo
The real reason we tip

The real reason we tip

Yahoo28-07-2025
We've all been there. Maybe it's when you grab a coffee in the morning or when you finish up a dinner out with friends. Maybe it's when you least expect it, like at the merch table at a concert. You tap your card, only to be confronted with the dreaded tip screen. There's a lot of talk about how much to tip and if you even should tip (more on that later), but why do we add gratuity in America in the first place?
Nina Mast has the answer. She's an analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, DC. The point of the tip is to make up the difference between the minimum wage and the tipped minimum wage. 'The tipped minimum wage is the lower minimum wage that employers can pay tipped workers with the expectation that tips will bring their pay up to the regular minimum wage rate,' she says. 'Under federal law, the tipped minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. So tipped workers need to earn an additional $5.12 in tips to bring them up to the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.'
On this week's episode of Explain It to Me, Vox's weekly call-in podcast, we find out how this system began and why we still have it.
Below is an excerpt of our conversation with Mast, edited for length and clarity. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts. If you'd like to submit a question, send an email to askvox@vox.com or call 1-800-618-8545.
Where does tipping in America come from in the first place?
Tipping goes back to the pre-Civil War times in the US. There were wealthy Americans who were vacationing in Europe, and they noticed this practice of tipping where if you had good service, you gave a small extra fee on top of what you paid.
Then, tipping started to fade as a practice in Europe but persisted in the US. We can tie that back to the abolition of slavery. Once slavery was abolished following the Civil War, workers who were formerly enslaved in agriculture and domestic service continued to do these same jobs, but employers didn't want to pay them.
So instead of actually just paying them their wage, they suggested that the customer paid a small tip to Black workers for their services. That's how tipping started proliferating across service sector jobs and became the predominant way that workers in these jobs were paid.
How did the restaurant industry start to do this?
It really goes back to the formation of the National Restaurant Association. From the very beginning, going back to the early 1920s, they united around a common goal of keeping labor costs low, essentially lobbying against any efforts to raise wages for tipped workers and to eliminate the tipped minimum wage.
It sounds like this whole policy is a direct legacy of trying to keep Black people from getting the same minimum wage as other workers. When were service sectors included in the national minimum wage?
It wasn't until the mid-1960s that tipped workers got the same rights as other workers under changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act. In the mid-1960s — this is during the civil rights movement, a few years after the March on Washington, which called for stronger minimum wage protections — amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act established a wage floor for tipped workers. It also increased protections for workers in agriculture, schools, laundries, nursing homes — a lot of sectors in which Black people were disproportionately employed and in which workers of color are still overrepresented even today. This was a big deal. Something like a third of the Black population gained protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act through these amendments in 1966.
Even after these amendments, the FLSA continued to exclude farm workers from overtime protections, and domestic workers didn't gain rights until the 1970s. It was a significant change, and a big deal, for tipped workers to be covered, but there was a huge catch in the amendment. It established a lower minimum wage that tipped workers could be paid through the creation of the tip credit system. And that's still what is in use today. This tip credit essentially allowed employers to count the tips that were received by their staff against half of the minimum wage that they were required to pay.
In 1996, the FLSA was amended again to raise the minimum wage federally from $4.25 to $5.15. Essentially, that froze the tipped minimum wage at $2.13 an hour, while the non-tipped minimum wage continued to go up. The tipped minimum wage has been stuck at $2.13 an hour since 1991, even though the federal minimum wage has been increased multiple times. And that's still the situation we're in now.
Why hasn't this changed? It seems like it would be easier to give everyone the same minimum wage, and you wouldn't have to worry about tipping.
I think that's in large part due to the lobbying and advocacy efforts of the National Restaurant Association, its affiliates — groups like the US Chamber of Commerce — and other employer groups that have fought tirelessly to prevent the minimum wage from being raised, both for tipped workers and for other workers.
There is a proposal in Congress to raise the minimum wage to $17 an hour by 2030, and it would completely phase out this tipped minimum wage so tipped workers would receive the same minimum wage as everyone else.
Some states have already eliminated the tipped minimum wage, but a lot more states haven't been able to do so yet. In most states, the minimum wage for tipped workers is still less than $4 an hour.
How does the tip credit system work in practice?
Employers are legally required to make up the difference if workers aren't receiving enough in tips to get them up to the regular minimum wage. But in practice, it's extremely difficult to enforce that rule. It's largely left up to the workers themselves to track their hours, their tips, and make some complicated calculations about what they're actually earning per hour per week.
Then they have to confront their employer if it seems like they're not actually receiving the minimum wage, which obviously introduces a whole host of issues related to power dynamics. Not only is it difficult to calculate and keep track of, but it's also difficult for workers to demand what they're owed.
As a result, it's largely not enforced. Workers who are already earning much lower wages than workers in non-tipped occupations are highly at risk of wage theft.
I think as consumers, we're initially taught that tips are a way to reward good service. How should we think about tipping?
I think this is a big misconception. People don't realize that they're actually paying the lion's share of their server's wages through their tips. Unfortunately, when you fail to tip your server, you're actually denying them their wage. We don't have the luxury in the US of having the system that you describe where you can pay a tip for particularly good service or pay a smaller tip to indicate that you didn't get good service.
How much do you typically tip?
I tip 20 percent as a standard, and sometimes, for a really good service, I'll tip more. I think that's basically the standard at this point in the US. It does get tricky, because we've seen a proliferation of tipping across lots of different transactions where a service wasn't necessarily rendered.
I think customers are increasingly frustrated by that, especially as the costs of things have gone up. But I hope customers target their frustration not at tipped workers but towards the employers and the lobbying groups that have fought for decades to preserve and expand the system. When you're tipping, remember that you're actually paying your server's wage, and that's a problem that we need to be solving by putting the onus on employers to pay their workers.
Solve the daily Crossword
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

One Association CEO on Elevating the Role of Planners
One Association CEO on Elevating the Role of Planners

Skift

timea minute ago

  • Skift

One Association CEO on Elevating the Role of Planners

This association exec says planners are much more than just a final check — and often have the final say where meetings are concerned. P Joanne Ray, principal at Consultants in Association Philanthropy, has spent much of her career in leadership roles at various associations, including CEO of the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation and the Urgent Care Association, and executive director of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, among others. While leading these organizations, some with staffs as big as 75 people, she always has had her hand in meeting planning. She's also seen some planners elevate their roles to become valuable consultants to association leadership. Skift Meetings sat down with Ray to get her perspective on planners' value to associations, and how they can build successful working relationships with the C-suite. As a CEO, how involved were you in your organizations' annual meetings? I would say that for most organizations that I've been with, we would meet weekly, starting three to four months out from the meeting. Some organizations had two major meetings; when I first started with the Urgent Care Association, we had a big spring meeting and a big fall meeting. So you jumped right out of one and into another. The meetings included the key staff: the meeting planners and the director-level staff. What details did you work on with your meeting planners? I was involved with site selection and contracting and went on site inspections. Also, when it came to entertainment or keynote speakers, I would bring the final couple of choices to a planning committee of volunteers, industry members who made those decisions. Programmatically, I was not involved because I was working for medical associations where my education directors managed teams of subject matter experts who put the content together. As far as site selection, why is it important for planners to be looped in from the start? The planner has to be in on the conceptual stage enough to know what we're looking for in a site. And if next year's meeting is going to be dramatically different than this year's meeting, the planner needs to conceptually understand what are we incorporating that we didn't have, like adding a gala that we didn't have the year before, or adding an off-site activity. How important is it to have a planning committee? It's important because they bring the knowledge of the hot topics, prominent presenters, and what the pain points are for the attendees. What makes for the best working relationship between a planner and an association CEO? Under the best scenario, the head meeting planner is part of the strategy team. They're at the board meetings, so they know the leadership. They're integrated into the program planning because they need to assign the rooms. They're also integrated into the funding and sponsorship because, depending on how well-versed they are, they might end up helping sponsors understand what opportunities there are. How important is it for planners to understand the association's culture? Very important. They need to understand the members well enough to know that you don't plan a meeting for emergency nurses the same way you do for restaurant owners and operators, or for veterinarians. Every group has its own kind of culture. Do you believe associations can have the same experience using outsourced meeting planners as they can with planners who are on staff? At the Urgent Care Association, we outsourced planning to a meeting planning group that was with us for my last three years and then for a couple of years after I moved on. And it worked, because they became a part of the team. When we had a weekly or a biweekly meeting, they were part of that meeting. They weren't on site, but they were local. Or they would join electronically. So they were part of the planning process, and they actually ran those meetings. Have you had planners overturn your decisions? Absolutely. I can think of instances where they would say, 'There's no way you can schedule this like this. There's not enough time for people to move from one session to the next.' Things like that. They are the check, if you will — almost to the extent to be the final say, unless there's really an issue. What do you think planners can do to get that proverbial 'seat at the table'? I'll answer you the same way I've answered dozens of aspiring association directors over the years: You've got to get your blinders off and think beyond your job. You can't be siloed. You've got to understand how your job integrates with the others. And that's a two-way street. The CEO needs to set a culture that is inclusive and to include the planners in the right meetings and the right settings, and to show that he or she recognizes their value.

Speaker Training Firm Shuts Down, Cites ‘Serious Financial Irregularities'
Speaker Training Firm Shuts Down, Cites ‘Serious Financial Irregularities'

Skift

timea minute ago

  • Skift

Speaker Training Firm Shuts Down, Cites ‘Serious Financial Irregularities'

When allegations of misconduct surface, even tight-knit professional networks like those found at ImpactEleven can unravel. This shutdown removes a prominent player from the professional speaking ecosystem. ImpactEleven, a professional speaking training company, has shut down after the discovery of 'serious financial irregularities,' according to a letter from company founders obtained by Skift Meetings. 'Effective immediately, ImpactEleven will cease operations. The discovery of serious financial irregularities and further investigation into potential misconduct, has rendered the business completely insolvent,' said the letter addressed to speakers bureaus. 'Like you, we were surprised and deeply saddened by what we have discovered, and the impact on the mission we have invested so fully in.' The company's website shows an error page as of Friday. 'In spite of the insolvency of ImpactEleven, every penny of outstanding commissions and expense reimbursements owed to our Bureau Partners will be paid immediately and in full by the Founding Partners personally,' the letter said. The letter was not dated, but several employees posted on LinkedIn that the firm shut down last week. CEO and co-founder Jordan Broad was not among those who signed the letter and his LinkedIn profile shows his role at the company ending in July. Skift contacted Broad on LinkedIn but he did not respond to a request for an interview. 'While the investigation into the misconduct is still ongoing, we feel it's important to share that the Founding Partners have never received any compensation or distributions from ImpactEleven. In fact, we personally invested millions of dollars of our own savings — and countless hours of our time and energy — to build and serve this community. This has been emotionally devastating and extremely damaging financially for so many people,' the letter says. ImpactEleven also ran a membership program and in a separate letter to subscribers, the founding partners state they are actively developing a 'make good' plan to 'deliver on the value of your membership to the very best of our ability.' The founding partners who signed the letters are: Seth Mattison, Josh Linkner, Peter Sheahan, and Ryan Estis. They did not respond to requests for comment. From High Valuation to Collapse Founded to support speakers through live events, coaching programs, creative services, and tiered membership subscriptions, ImpactEleven worked closely with speakers bureaus including BigSpeak, Gotham Artists, and Worldwide Speakers Group. Membership fees reached $1,495 per month for its Platinum tier, plus a $2,495 onboarding fee. The company also offered speaker boot camps with tickets starting at $7,000. Community members had access to discounted rates. In April 2024, the company raised nearly $1 million on Netcapital and had a $20 million valuation. A follow-up fundraising campaign this April attempted to raise $3.6 million but brought in only $550,000. Among those affected was keynote speaker Nolan Nichols, who credits the group with helping his career. 'I was working a full-time job when I attended one of their speaker boot camps in Austin in 2023. That experience changed my career, my life,' said Nichols. 'It's as if the doors of my college have shuttered. I have such pride and allegiance for what this organization did.' Nichols described the life of a keynote speaker as 'often lonely,' adding that ImpactEleven provided an unmatched sense of community and mentorship.

Trump Admin Has Dropped a Third of All Investigations Into Big Tech, Advocates Say
Trump Admin Has Dropped a Third of All Investigations Into Big Tech, Advocates Say

Gizmodo

timea minute ago

  • Gizmodo

Trump Admin Has Dropped a Third of All Investigations Into Big Tech, Advocates Say

Trump talked a big game during the election about taking the fight to Silicon Valley. But, since taking office, the former reality star seems to have done little to make good on that promise. In fact, a recent survey of his actions claims that Trump, whose political victory was partially propelled by gargantuan gobs of cash from tech firms and their executives, has dropped a third of all investigations and enforcement actions against tech companies since taking power. The report, published by the advocacy organization Public Citizen, notes that, at the start of Trump's second term, there were at least 104 tech companies facing at least 142 federal investigations and enforcement actions. As of August, 47 of the enforcement actions against 45 of those tech companies 'have been withdrawn or halted (38 withdrawn, nine halted).' Companies that have had enforcement actions 'paused' or 'frozen' since the beginning of the year include big-name firms like Meta, PayPal, and Tesla. In many cases, enforcement actions have also been dismissed or withdrawn, including against prominent crypto companies like Coinbase, and Kraken. The cryptocurrency industry was, notably, a big contributor to Trump's campaign last year. Those same companies whose executives and investors have recently felt the regulatory heat ease off their backs made significant political financial contributions since the beginning of 2024, the bulk of which totals some $1.2 billion, according to Public Citizen's tally. Most of the contributions were given to the GOP, and some of them went directly to Trump (either to his businesses or his inauguration fund). The contributions were also made by the companies' executives and investors. Humorously, the Public Citizen report includes an entire section on Elon Musk. Indeed, of the total political spending mentioned in the report, nearly half is attributable to Musk. The report points out that, among those executives who attended Trump's inauguration, Musk—who would go on to lead Trump's DOGE initiative and serve (for awhile, at least) as the president's 'first buddy'—is the CEO 'whose businesses face the most federal enforcement actions – at least 19 separate sets of allegations from at least nine federal agencies.' Unfortunately for Musk, a lot of those cases remain up in the air. The report notes that, amidst the ongoing spats between the Tesla billionaire and the president, there continues to be 'uncertainty into what will come of the investigations and enforcement lawsuits against Musk's corporations.' The loss of interest in tech company probes may be part of a broader trend of regulatory disinterest, as the report notes that the administration has 'withdrawn or halted enforcement actions against 165 corporations of all types' this year, including the aforementioned tech companies. 'This massive retreat from enforcement and dropping categories of cases involving corporate misconduct is something I've never seen before,' Rick Claypool, a research director at Public Citizen's President's Office and the author of the report, told 404 Media. 'Many of these cases being dropped now originated in the first Trump administration. They were, correctly in my view, pursuing crypto scams.' The report also dutifully notes that the 'existence of investigations and/or allegations of misconduct do not necessarily mean that any laws were broken, or that an enforcement action necessarily would have been brought under a different administration.' Gizmodo reached out to the Trump administration for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store